WHICH SIDE DO YOU THINK ERRS?

Last week, the Pastoral Committee of the Baptist Church of Mizoram held a meeting to follow up on the progress of the execution of the 2008 Assembly resolution 1.21.

The Assembly resolution passed seven years ago mandated pastors and ministers' wives to cease all full-time work by 2015. The rationale behind this resolution was for ministers and pastors to always be accompanied by their wives in their pastorates. In Mizoram, contrary to the principle of local church autonomy where local church pastors are employed by the local church, a centralised church administration appoints pastors throughout their ministry.
Due to severe complications that arose out of the Assembly resolution, the relationship between the Baptist church leaders and the affected pastors (often described as "victims") went from bad to worse.

Last November, the Pastoral Committee decided that those pastors and ministers whose wives did not resign from their full time jobs in obedience to the Assembly resolution would be deemed defiant and proposed to invoke the harshest one of the clauses of the church rules for disciplinary action - termination from service. An ultimatum was given and the concerned pastors were to submit their decision by August 31.

There was much angst in the months that followed the Nov 2014 Pastoral Committee meeting. However, majority of the affected pastors decided to stand up against what they believed was an unjust and ruthless church governance. Besides, much of their family life had already been aligned with their wives' ability to earn for their families. They stood their ground and hoped the Committee would come to understand that certain areas of their lives may not come under the authority and directives of the church, however well-intentioned it may be. They also believed that they have not been disloyal nor disobedient to the will of the church they have served for many years.

While the Committee expected them to submit letters of acquiescence, most of them stated their inability to do so. The Committee considered the letters on September 9 and after much discussion it stuck to its argument that the "excuses" of the pastors display an unwillingness to obey the 2008 Assembly resolution. A new deadline was given. 17 pastors/ministers will be expected by the Pastoral Committee to hand in their decision on whether or not they are going to be able to fulfil the Assembly resolution. They are instructed to submit their "real decision" to the General Secretary by October. According to the Committee, their decision could invite the disciplinary action clauses of the church rules. However, in a surprising change of tone, the termination of service was not mentioned this time.

The question of whether or not a committee under the Assembly, i.e., in this case the Pastoral Committee, has the power and authority to issue orders and rulings contrary to an Assembly resolution is a settled matter clearly written in the Constitution. Under the "Powers and Functions" of the Assembly which is the "highest council of the Baptist Church of Mizoram", "any decision taken by the Assembly may not be altered by any other committee." The words of the Mizo version is even more definitive. Committees under the Assembly simply donot have the authority to alter the decision of the Assembly. Only the Assembly can. This is to safeguard the legislative authority of the Assembly.

When the Pastoral Committee altered the Assembly decision or resolution 1.21 and gave ultimatum to the pastors, it acted in defiance of the Constitution.

The prohibition of pastors' and ministers' wives to work full time by the Assembly in 2008 also violates Chapter 3 of the BCM Constitution where the defense of human rights is codified as one of the objectives of the BCM. And the Indian Constitution Article 19 guarantees India citizens "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business." The Assembly in 2008 erred on four known counts. It violated the BCM Constitution, The Baptist World Alliance Constitution, the Indian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The determined attempt to implement the unconstitutional 2008 Assembly resolution 1.21 only reveals the consequent violation of the BCM's own Constitution and the gross disregard for the only document, besides the Bible, from which all enumerated powers are given and exercised. Any exercise of power beyond that is either an innocently-misused authority or an abuse of authority.

The BCM Constitution states that the President shall preside over meetings of the Committees under the Assembly and "shall work according to the Church Constitution and Rules." The General Secretary who is the "chief administrator and chief executive functionary of the Church" is given the authority by the Constitution to "exercise the rules and regulations of the BCM."

The Baptist Church of Mizoram, under its Constitution, authorises the two very important offices of the Church to perform certain functions of the Church to further the cause of Christ's Kingdom on earth. When the clearly defined rules are not followed, misconstrued or abused the office holders are in contempt of the very law that authorises them to hold the office and they have become masters and not servants of the people that make up the church. 

There is provision for ministers and pastors to be reprimanded, disciplined and even sacked. However, there seems to be none in the Constitution for the officers of the church when they act in defiance of the trust given to them by the people through the Constitution.

The President presides Committee meetings and the General Secretary acts as the secretary of those committees. They are required by the Constitution in God's Name to exercise their authority within the confines of the Constitution.

Seventeen pastors are considered to be disobedient to the Assembly's resolution by the Pastoral Committee, a committee headed by the President and General Secretary, because they believe the Assembly passed an unconstitutional and unworkable resolution. The President and General Secretary, in direct contradiction to the powers and authority given to them by the church, has allowed, under their leadership, a profoundly unconstitutional agenda to destroy the working relationship of the church.

Which side, in your objective judgement, do you think errs? The pastors standing up against unconstitutional resolutions or leaders that exercise power contrary to their Constitutional obligation and mandate?